Here’s dreaming of a white Christmas… Ron Paul edition

On cold winter nights like this one, there’s nothing I like more than curling up in front of the fireplace and reading some classic racist tracts. Tonight, I’m sitting here in my easy chair, with a piping hot cup of camomile tea, and a big stack of Ron Paul newsletters. I really can’t imagine a better way to spend my evening after baking Christmas cookies with my daughter…

OK, back to reality…

I’d heard about these newsletters a long time ago, but I’d never taken the time to search them out and read them. Now that Paul looks like the Republican favorite in Iowa, though, I thought that I should make the effort. Fortunately, they were easy to find. Here’s another taste.

In Paul’s defense, he says now that he didn’t write the more objectionable articles – like the ones that go into detail as to how one should prepare himself for the coming race war – even though they were published under his name. But, that wasn’t always what he said. Here’s a clip from an article on the the Business Insider website.

…In 1996 when the Texas Monthly investigated the newsletters, Paul took responsibility for them and said that certain things were taken out of context. (It’s hard to imagine a context that would make the above quotes defensible.)

When the newsletter controversy came up again during the 2008 campaign, Paul explained that he didn’t actually write the newsletters but because they carried his name he was morally responsible for their content. Further, he didn’t know exactly who wrote the offensive things and they didn’t represent his views.

But it is still a serious issue. Jamie Kirchick reported in The New Republic that Paul made nearly one million dollars in just one year from publishing the newsletters. Could Paul really not understand the working of such a profitable operation? Reporters at the libertarian-leaning Reason magazine wrote that the author was likely longtime Paul-friend and combative polemicist Lew Rockwell…

Regardless of who wrote the racist and homophobic rants that went out under his name in the 80’s and 90’s, I think it’s clear that Paul signed off on them. Now, though, it seems as though people are willing to give him a pass on it. Michael Brendan Dougherty, the author of the Business Insider piece quoted above, while not exactly letting Paul off the hook completely, suggests that race-baiting was just something that Libertarians had to do back then in order to grow their base, and get elected, as thought that makes it somehow OK. Here’s how Dougherty explains it.

…(I)n the 1990s and 1980s, anti-government sentiment was much less mainstream. It seemed contained to the racist right-wing, people who supported militia movements, who obsessed over political correctness, who were suspicious of free-trade deals like NAFTA…

At that time a libertarian theorist, Murray Rothbard argued that libertarians ought to engage in “Outreach to the Rednecks” in order to insert their libertarian theories into the middle of the nation’s political passions.

Rothbard had tremendous influence on Lew Rockwell, and the whole slice of the libertarian movement that adored Ron Paul.

But Rothbard and Rockwell never stuck with their alliances with angry white men on the far right. They have been willing to shift alliances from left to right and back again. Before this “outreach” to racists, Rothbard aligned himself with anti-Vietnam war protestors in the 1960s. In the 2000s, after the “outreach” had failed, Rockwell complained bitterly about “Red-State fascists” who supported George Bush and his war. So much for the “Rednecks.” The anti-government theories stay the same, the political strategy shifts in odd and extreme directions.

As crazy as it sounds, Ron Paul’s newsletter writers may not have been sincerely racist at all. They actually thought appearing to be racist was a good political strategy in the 1990s. After that strategy yielded almost nothing — it was abandoned by Paul’s admirers…

Do you buy that he was never really a racist? And, if so, does that excuse the fact that he was disseminating such garbage, and profiting from it financially? Does the fact that it was, according to this theory, only done for votes, make it any more palatable? I’m inclined to say no, but I’m curious to hear what you think.

Also, I should probably mention that I chose to post this here tonight as a kind of reminder to myself as to why I can’t pull the lever for Paul come election time. Last week, when we heard that Obama wouldn’t be vetoing the NDAA, as he’d promised, I found myself thinking that a vote for Paul might not be such a bad thing after all. “Sure, he’s crazy,” I thought, “but at least he’ll put an end to shit like this.” Then, a few minutes later, I made a note to myself to read these back issues of the Ron Paul Survival Report. And, no, the use of race baiting isn’t the only reason that I won’t be voting for Paul. It just reminded me that he holds many views that I find objectionable.

update: There may be some creative editing at play, but it looks as though Ron Paul just walked out of a CNN interview, after having the following exchange about these newsletters.

PAUL: “I never read that stuff. I was probably aware of it ten years after it was written and it’s been going on 20 years that people have pestered me about this and CNN does it every single time. So when are you going to wear yourself out?”

BORGER: “Is it legitimate? Is it a legitimate question to ask that something went out in your name?”

PAUL: “And when you get the answer, it’s legitimate you sort of take the answers you get. I didn’t write them. didn’t read them at the time and I disavow them. That is your answer.”

Sure, I buy that those people who write that crap are just trying to attract scum to vote for them, obviously most politician’s “beliefs” are a grey pablum that they cynically twist to appear to conform to the “beliefs” of our “informed” “citizenry”. The entire campaign is a set of easter eggs for true believers which are in reality an empty set. No human or set of humans could possibly understand or predict what it is like being the figurehead of the most complex machine in history, and no human being or set of human beings could know 1% of the possible information in any area. Let’s say the moon turns to blood and Mr. Paul wins, nothing he says about what he would do would happen, not one thing.

Mark, why don’t you just consider writing in Ralph Nader, then reconsider, then blame Nader when your second choice loses the election. Again. You just don’t seem to know what to do. I heard John Edwards was staging a comeback.

i am repulsed and intrigued by both Pauls – i could possibly vote for them. with americans elect in the game, they split votes on the red and blue sides – i think the end result could easily swing any direction, even giving Santorum a chance. we could survive 4 years of a Paul, i just have no enthusiasm for 4 more years of the same. funny how a “change” and “hope” candidate has only filled me with hope for change.

I have been consistently amazed this political season by two things; the people who thought Obama was the 2nd coming and are existentially disappointed he isn’t, and that these people are so angry with him over their mindless overestimation they are willing to consider voting for some deviant who makes outlandish claims that have zero ground for feasability let alone implementation. Doesn’t it strike anyone that this beetle from Texas and the unprecidented havok he would wreck if any of this nonsense about cutting one trillion in spending and 80% of the govt in one year comes to pass as about the most fantastically destructive plot that any cartoonish supervillian could concieve? This lack of clear thinkin could only be the product of unalloyed dispair

Let me get this straight: you’re going to support a guy who eliminates our right to a trial by jury over a guy who didn’t write racist things in his newsletter, and didn’t know about them for 10 years. Makes sense.

Worse than that, Black Jake, Obama was against the elimination of rights of the accused before he was for the elimination of the same. Just campaign promises. When you realize your hero is only a politician, I guess it hurts. The repetition of the cycles are getting so quick now we don’t need historians anymore.

So Obama doesn’t have the balls to veto legislation that takes away our basic rights that have existed since the Magna Carta?

Ron Paul has had the balls to do the right thing even if he was the only person who voted against an unconstitutional bill, and he’s had those balls since the 1970’s in Congress.

Obama’s a coward if he doesn’t veto the NDAA, at best. Carl Levin insisted, however, that Obama was the one who wanted the indefinite detention for U.S. citizens language included in the NDAA.

You aught to be ashamed of yourselves. The NDAA is the biggest legislative outrage since the intolerable acts, and all you care about is that Ron Paul was made to look guilty for something that he isn’t guilty of. Why do you think the political establishment of both parties hate him so much? Are you going to believe their propaganda so that they stay in power indefinitely? Really, after all that’s happened??

I can’t speak for all the other wild-eyed, rapist animals in the audience, but he’s got this nigger’s vote. I find his honest refreshing, and look forward to the reintroduction of segregation under his administration.

So Obama doesn’t have the balls to veto legislation that takes away our basic rights that have existed since the Magna Carta?

Padilla was arrested in Chicago on May 8, 2002 on suspicion of plotting a radiological bomb (“dirty bomb”) attack. He was detained as a material witness until June 9, 2002, when President George W. Bush designated him an enemy combatant and, arguing that he was thereby not entitled to trial in civilian courts, had him transferred to a military prison.

Why do you think the political establishment of both parties hate him so much?

So the same political establishment that passed this unconstitutional bill doesn’t like Obama? Isn’t that a good thing?

I’m disappointed that Paul, who has been saying for months that he doesn’t get enough TV exposure, decided to walk out on that interview. I don’t want someone for president who can’t stand up to difficult questions.

For what it’s worth, I won’t be voting for Paul, but it won’t be because he (in the best case scenario) pandered to the racists of Texas in order to win a few elections and sell some shitty newsletters. It’ll be because he believes the things articulated on this site.

Representative Ron Paul (R-TX), the nationalist/anti-interventionist/libertarian presidential candidate with a penchant for publishing racist newsletters would probably have done well to keep his views on the Civil War to himself rather than denouncing Abraham Lincoln and calling it a “senseless” conflict back during the 2008 cycle.

Indeed, this leaves Paul open to the accusation from Avi Zenilman that he was proposing a massive bailout of slaveowners. The fact of the matter is, however, that Paul is basically right on the economics here. The total value of the slave population of the United States was around $3 billion in 1860s money which is about (PDF) what the Union spent on the war. When you consider the $1 billion spent by the Confederacy and — of course — the huge non-monetary costs involved in getting hundreds of thousands of people killed, hundreds of thousands more maimed, vast swathes of southern infrastructure ruined, etc. it would have made much more sense to undertake a scheme of fair value financial compensation than to fight a years-long war.

Where Paul goes wrong here is on his history. The policy Paul suggests was in fact the policy of the Lincoln administration. Abolitionists didn’t like it because, precisely as Zenilman suggests, it seems morally wrong to financially reward slaveowners for participation in a gross moral crime. But this was the position of the initially dominant moderate wing of the Republican Party. It didn’t happen because southerners rejected it. And southerners rejected it because — to play Captain Obvious for a minute — slavery was in part about naked financial self-interest but also in large part about an ideological commitment to racism and white supremacy.

I don’t think it matters whether Paul himself is a true racist or not. What matters is that he’s willing to let the poor and black take the fall when it suits his political aims, which makes him just like any other candidate on the Republican stage.

Given that, I would say that he’s worse than a racist. He’ll never get my vote.

Paul isn’t used to being confronted on anything. He’s used to speaking to speechless audiences that accept his word as gospel. He’s used to being an insignificant, powerless, though uncontested representative of a small district in Texas. Paul isn’t used to being a candidate for the executive that will one day have real power.

Mostly though, given the utter lack of scrutiny from his possibly well meaning though passionate followers, he’s never had to field many questions on the consequences of his mostly batshit views.

The CNN interview is pretty minor. I think that it’s a window into his weakness as a real candidate though.

The newsletters come up every time he runs for office. What the hell are you talking about regarding not coming under scrutiny?

That’s why he walked away — he’d just been quizzed on them and gave his answer on CNN, then she asked him the same question over and over, which he answered several times before getting tired of it. He didn’t crack under scrutiny and “storm off” or some bullshit. If I asked you your name enough times, and kept asking even though you kept giving it, eventually you’d get tired of it and walk away.

I respect that people don’t like his policies, but the racist thing is bullshit.

I would vote for him if he were racist. I have absolutely no problem, however, if it’s true that he just incited the passions of racists in order to fill his coffers, and get the votes necessary in order to obtain a seat in Congress. That just says to me that he’s an ambitious go-getter.

That was sarcasm, by the way.

It’s one thing to be a racist. Some people are just stupid, and/or born into it. To fan the flames of racism for personal gain and power, though, I think is worse. It’s evil. And there’s no way this guy should even be in the running for President.

And, for those of you who are new to the subject, he believes we should shut down the EPA…… you know, the entity that protects our air and water. Furthermore, he thinks the use of contraception is sinful. And he doesn’t believe in the science of evolution.

Calling New York “Rapeville” because it has a large black population may get one elected in Texas, but it won’t work across the country.

How it is “bullshit”, Jake? I’ve read the newsletters. They’re racist. Do you really believe that he didn’t know what was being published under his name?

I can see how you might say that he no longer believes it, or that he didn’t mean it at the time, but was just trying to get elected by racists, but you can’t say that he didn’t know what was published under his name.

And, just to humor you, let’s say that he really was so oblivious that he allowed racist comments to be published year after year, under his name. Is that the kind of man you want as President? Do you want someone who would just sign anything without reading it?

Yeah, he let his newsletters be ghost-written by different people when he returned to work as a doctor, and he didn’t proof read them. Why should that upset me? It’s not his fault somebody else is a racist, and it’s not his fault if some other guy/s tried to appeal to racist voters (if that’s even true). He didn’t.

It’s not his writing style. His views have been extremely consistent for the past 30 years. His only position change has been to turn against the federal death penalty because it is disproportionally applied to minorities. One of the many reasons he’s so against the drug war is that it likewise disproportionally affects minorities. He’s not afraid to tell people what he thinks, even if it’s extremely unpopular — if the guy was a racist, he’d say so.

Anybody here who’s interested in voting for Ron Paul this time around, do so with a clear conscience. The guy’s not a racist, he didn’t write the newsletters, and he didn’t read them until 10 years or so after they were written. These newsletter come up every time he runs for anything, this is nothing new. Look at everything else he’s done, said, and stood for, and judge for yourself.

Thom Elliot: “this nonsense about cutting one trillion in spending and 80% of the govt in one year”

You’ve hit, unintentionally, upon the weakest aspect of the whole Ron Paul phenomenon: namely, that it really IS nonsense in practical, objective terms. There is no way in hell that Ron Paul, alone, (or even with quite a bit of support), could cut a trillion in spending, or even a fraction of that. All he could do is use the presidency as bully pulpit. But then, that is itself a most respectable thing, not to be disparaged. It is high time someone used the presidency as platform to denounce militarism and war. Needless to say, we cannot count on ANY OTHER Democrat or Republican to do so. Oh, wait… maybe Bernie Sanders.

Black Jake: “Let me get this straight: you’re going to support a guy who eliminates our right to a trial by jury over a guy who didn’t write racist things in his newsletter, and didn’t know about them for 10 years. Makes sense.”

It is worse than that, Jake. Obama is much more of a racist — in objective, effective fact — that Ron Paul ever was or will be. Obama has not lifted a freaking FINGER to reign-in the incredibly racist criminal “justice” system or associated prison-industrial complex, and the drug laws that fill them with blacks. Granted, he could not single-handedly make a huge change in those policies and structures, but at least he could use his moral authority, as president, to denounce them and agitate for their abolition. Certainly Ron Paul would do so — and has done so, though obviously not as POTUS.

Naturally, Obama would never make overt racist remarks. He just supports our society’s structural racism, and fails to take ANY position, EVER, in opposition to grossly racist policies and outrageous violations of the civil and human rights of minorities. Minor point, I realize. After all, it is more important never to make a racist joke. [/sarcasm]

Peter Larsen: “I don’t really understand how a criticism of Paul is an endorsement of Obama. How you get from there to there is quite mysterious to me.”

No mystery at all, Pete. Are you serious? Eliminate Paul, and who is left to vote for? You think anyone here could possibly vote for Gingrich? Criticism of Paul is support of the only alternative(s). Not that that is necessarily bad; I’m just pointing out the obvious reality — and I’m unconvinced that you truly find this “mysterious”.

Today, I have spent far too much time reading about Ron Paul. I’ve read interviews, I read one of his books (“End the Fed,” now THAT was a total waste of time), I’ve read things by other people writing about Ron Paul, I’ve read transcripts of public appearances, etc.. .

There are things I like, though they are vastly overshadowed by all the things I don’t like.

I still wouldn’t ever vote for the guy.

And no, Alan, it is mysterious. One can criticize Paul and Obama at the same time. One can also choose not to vote at all, though I understand your point.

It is worse than that, Jake. Obama is much more of a racist — in objective, effective fact — that Ron Paul ever was or will be. Obama has not lifted a freaking FINGER to reign-in the incredibly racist criminal “justice” system or associated prison-industrial complex, and the drug laws that fill them with blacks.

Aug, 2010 President Obama signed legislation on Tuesday reducing longstanding federal sentencing disparities between those caught with crack and those arrested with powder cocaine, finalizing a bipartisan consensus addressing a racially polarizing law enforcement debate.

Sorry for the above post. It is useless. There is no point getting exercised about Ron Paul. There is zero chance of him ever being president.

1. He is opposed on principal to miltarism and war 2. He does not support Zionism 3. He wants to audit, at minimum, or even abolish, the Fed.

…. Any ONE of those three is enough to guarantee that he will never get to the presidency. He would be assassinated, probably even before the election, or certainly after, if he won. (Before would be “better”.)

The sad thing is that our well-intentioned lefty friends — whose names I will not mention, Mark — cannot see the real dynamics here. The quarter-century-old racist newsletters are trotted out as though they had the slightest real relationship to the key issues in front of us right now, and this passes for “progressivism”. Sigh.

It is grimly amusing that the entirety of the mainstream hates Paul — both left AND right. (A fact which itself constitutes a fair reason for giving the guy a serious hearing.) As Raimondo just put it: [quote:] On both the neoconservative “right” and the Obama-ite “left,” the spittle is flying: the gate-keepers of the politically permissible are practically frothing at the mouth, letting fly an outburst of political Tourette’s Syndrome, with epithets like “geezer,” “crank,” “crazy old uncle,” and “pestilential little locust.” [end quote] from: http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/12/20/we-shall-overcome/

“The gate-keepers of the politically permissible”. Exactly! With Daily Kos, the DLC, etc., etc., ad nauseum, in the lead.

But even the Republicans are joining in the “anti-racist” tarring of Paul; vis (from same link): [quote] The same scumbags who put out the Willie Horton ad, and who have gloried in describing President Obama’s “Kenyan anti-colonialist mentality,” are now launching an “anti-racist” campaign against Doctor Paul – the one Republican candidate who not only calls for ending a “drug war” that targets blacks but who also stood up against the Muslim-hating gay-bashing crazies on the stage at those Republican debates. This is the ultimate proof that we have indeed slipped into another dimension – Bizarro World, where up is down, right is left, and a gentle and good-natured Doctor who has stood up for the underdog all his life is a “racist”. [end quote]

Ha. Right.

But, like I say, the whole thing is moot. Paul will NEVER be sworn-in as POTUS. Or if by some wild stretch he did make it that far, he would be killed shortly afterward.

“Let me get this straight: you’re going to support a guy who eliminates our right to a trial by jury over a guy who didn’t write racist things in his newsletter, and didn’t know about them for 10 years. Makes sense.”

As for the bullshit about the Fair Sentencing Act: Obama, as you must know, was in NO WAY in the lead on that one, or even much of a follower. The bill’s main supporters, you should note, included Ron Paul and Denny Kucinich. (Not unexpectedly.) Further, the bill was seriously watered-down and rather ridiculous, e.g. the sentencing disparity was reduced from a crazily-outrageous 100:1 down to a merely outrageous 18:1; this was done just to get the damn thing passed (the “something is better than nothing” rationale). Claiming that this is some sort of progressive accomplishment for Obama is simply laughable and out of touch with reality. Are you seriously claiming that? You really shouldn’t. It makes you look like a buffoon, which I’m sure you’re not.

Not only has Obama not been in the lead, he has lagged FAR behind on this critical issue — as admitted even by stalwart Obama-philes like dailykos.com. See below.

But it gets worse! Not only has Obama been a foot-dragger on this, but he has been a lying, unprincipaled SOB for years. He “supported” (verbally, rhetorically) more liberal policies back in his pre-POTUS years, but promptly DROPPED all such pretentions as soon as he walked into the Oval office. The bastard. He is really beneath contempt.

Dragon: You’ve got me there. I said “has not lifted a finger”, and you’re RIGHT! He DID lift a finger! Several fingers, in fact, to sign — in a lackluster fashion, with NO passion or leadership whatsoever — that ridiculous bill. DAMN, you are RIGHT! I stand corrected, and deeply ashamed of my error.

Further thought here, which everyone will hate, but what the hell? I’m not a politician…..

The real racists, in objective terms, are the people who flock to the polls to vote for mainstream Democrats and Republicans, year in, year out. By “objective terms” I mean in terms of actual, objective, accomplished FACT, as opposed to rhetorical or symbolic gestures, or subjective feelings. Voting for Obama was a symbolic gesture of anti-racism, for the obvious reason that the guy is half-black himself. It was subjectively anti-racist. It had a warm and fuzzy, feel-good “anti-racist” quality to it. You could get all misty-eyed, pulling the “Obama” lever and reflecting on the striking fact that a black man now has a serious chance to be POTUS. (I know this from personal experience, as I had several such misty-eyed experiences during that period. It WAS a remarkable and wonderful thing — that the U.S. might actually have a black president! And I STILL feel that way, occasionally.) However, the objective reality is that racist policies, practices and institutions have been maintained and even strengthened by Obama and the Democrats. And it is not just the drug issue. The U.S. “defense” establishment (i.e. war machine) is bigger than ever, thanks to Obama and all mainstream Democrats and Republicans, and it is itself a racist institution with respect to its actual functioning and effects in the world. Further, the financial and economic calamity that is now upon us — which the policies of the mainstream Democrats and Republicans both caused (before it happened) and aggravated (since it started) — is profoundly racist in its impact. The statistics indicate sharply worsening status of blacks relative to whites in the economic and household finance realm. Supporting these political creeps — e.g. Obama, Bush, etc. — is real RACISM of a significant kind — significant in terms of actual, objective, accomplished FACT, rather than mere rhetoric, or subjective feelings (warm fuzzy and misty-eyed).

(I might add, regarding the economic debacle, that Paul warned congress repeatedly throughout the 2000s that real estate was a bubble, that the Fed’s policies were setting us up for a disastrous crash, etc., etc. No one else was doing this.)

The real anti-racists, in the same objective terms, are people like Paul, who have vigorously, consistently, and uncompromisingly OPPOSED the racist fucking outrage of the war on drugs, in addition to numerous other policies and programs that are effectively racist. If that doesn’t count, whereas some questionable ancient-racist-newsletter stuff DOES count, then I fear that we may actually be in Raimondo’s bizzaro world where up is down and black is white.

I’m still trying to make sense of this thread. As I try, though, I wanted to share one small thought…. If the entirety of the mainstream were against Paul, as some of you suggest, I doubt that he’d be higher in the polls today than McCain was four years ago at this time.

Hey I’m having my own FB mini-war with some libertarian pals! This is a hoot! As a commentator on here (I’m sorry but I forget who) said so well…Libertarians are, generally speaking, white men that never amounted to much, and live under the delusion that this is due to affirmative action, government regulation, or something else. They’ve also watched too many Dirty Harry movies.

How do I know the quote so well? It’s saved on my FB page. God I love that quote.

In other news: the DP has apparently abandoned “all pretense” of trying to be the party of the white working class, according to Edsall. Well, I suppose you could say that since they abandoned the DP, years ago, the DP has more than an adequate excuse to abandon them. Still, it seems strange…..

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/the-future-of-the-obama-coalition/ November 27, 2011, 11:34 pm The Future of the Obama Coalition By THOMAS B. EDSALL For decades, Democrats have suffered continuous and increasingly severe losses among white voters. But preparations by Democratic operatives for the 2012 election make it clear for the first time that the party will explicitly abandon the white working class. All pretense of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned in favor of cementing a center-left coalition made up, on the one hand, of voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment — professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists — and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic. snip

How I feel about Obama, good or bad, does not change one little whit, the fact that Ron (The Sainted) Paul, published under his name and profited from racist rantings. That’s it. End of story. I don’t give a shit how much he wants to deny it now, he fucking published it and made money off of it. Anyone who is buying his excuses now and trying to help him out by disseminating the same obvious lies, is keeping company with a cynical racist. You are outing yourself as either as someone who excuses racism and homophobia or as someone who believes the same shit.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/22/ron-paul-newsletter_n_1165877.html

Well, it is true that the newsletter thing comes up every four years. In fact the way it gained traction four years ago was that some of McCain’s guys talked it up when Paul was up in the polls for a few days. Then, McCain sent someone to kiss Paul’s ass and beg for his support after it was obvious that McCain would win the nomination. Brings to mind the allegation that McCain fathered a child with a black woman in SC four years before that. Politics is certainly entertaining and fun, but it really serves no real purpose. And then there was Reverend Wright. Politics loves charges of racism. I am convinced we are all a little bit racist. Just look how excited we are all getting over this post. Defensive.

You’re comparing apples to oranges, Zimmer. Obama attended a church in which a Reverend had the audacity to say essentially that white people had historically fucked over black people. Obama didn’t say anything. He didn’t publish anything stating that what his belief. And, even if he did, it happens to be true. What Paul did was completely different. He published racist rants under his own name. You cannot compare the two. It is ironic, however, that some of the same people who were irate over the Reverend Wright thing, are now suggesting that we should forgive and forget when it comes to Ron Paul.

Yeah. Not really a good comparison. I listened to what Wright said, and it was incendiary or whatever, but not really appalling or anything. But, in the long run, Obama and Paul have the same problem. They both seem like decent guys and I suspect that they are neither of them racists anymore than the average person. But their idea is that we are all grown people and we should act that way and they have kind of grown to expect people to act that way. No shoving it down the electorate’s throat for Obama. You have to wonder if Paul even just allowed something like that to be written in his name without checking it out first, what kind of president would he make. And Obama is kind of aloof too. On the one hand, he is above all the fray, but the leadership is just not there. You barley even notice that he is president. And people are really little whining babies at heart. You have to treat them that way. Maybe that is why liberals are a little disappointed with Obama. He is not a pushy, crude asshole like LBJ. But we voted for him. Anyway, the Republicans don’t have anybody who can beat him in this election.

Black Jake, I actually took the time to read through the FAQ you linked to, or the “truth”, as you see it. If you think that load of half-lies, omission of facts and mishmash of obfuscation is truth, you’re even dumber than you look. And a big hearty fuck you for trying to frame this as pro-Paul=good, anti-Paul=evil. You are an asshole. Rejoice in that. One of the most egregious of these excuses that you Paultards are coming up with is this bull shit about it being 20 years ago. As if the passage of a couple of decades erases the rotten, racist rantings published under the name of a man in his 50’s. A man who espouses personal responsibility, who refuses to take responsibility for his own shit. And you guys really have a hard time with logic, don’t you? Which is it, he didn’t do it OR it was so long ago, it doesn’t matter. Because if he didn’t do it, than the passage of time is irrelevant. Idjits.

What’s your problem, Jake? Don’t you know that you’re supposed to be voting for the people that the gatekeeper left (michael moore, amy goodman, daily kos, etc etc., ad nauseum) TELL you to vote for? Don’t you know that you’re supposed to hate those who they TELL you to hate — and for the reasons that they tell you to hate them?! What’s WRONG with you, anyway? If you stay on this path, you’ll soon find yourself supporting nutballs who have ideas that are out of sync with the seamless and endless perpetuation of empire, war, institutional/structural racism, fraud, debt-slavery, and everything else that makes our society great! And to top it off, with OBAMA as our president, you’re a freaking TRAITOR TO YOUR RACE! You should be ashamed.

Anyone who supports substantive action in opposition to endless war and racist policies, and who FAILS to support kookie-kutter korporate kandidates like Obama, should be promptly denounced and excoriated.

oh never mind, that’s just some rhetorical bullshit. alan, you and jake should hook up and live libertarily ever after. don’t let people TELL you otherwise. “you’re the best jake”, “no you’re the best alan”; “everyone’s stupid but you jake you crazy loner rebel”, “no you are alan”

That CNN interview was actually edited to make it look like Paul was “storming” off. In reality, the interview was over, and CNN was purposely, egregiously, dishonestly, misleading viewers. Totally filthy. Address of full footage below.

Thanks, Jackie. I suspected that some creative editing may have been at play, and mentioned as much in the post. I don’t know, however, that it changes anything relative to the race-baiting employed by Paul at the outset of his career in politics. For what it’s worth, I also think it’s telling that, regardless of whether he really is as racist, he has so many racist followers. I guess that comes with the territory, however, when you talk about how the government shouldn’t have any right telling people who they should be able to serve in their restaurants, sell their homes too, etc. He may be incredibly principled, and despise racism, but I think it’s valid to point out that he’s the candidate most favored by racists.

No problem, Mark. When I first saw the CNN edit of the interview I was disappointed with how Paul handled the situation. But seeing the full version definitely made me more sympathetic to what the guy faces in his media coverage. If we say it’s valid to wonder about why Paul has so many racist supporters, I also think it’s valid to wonder about why, exactly, every major media outlet maligns him (with tactical smears, by giving him 1 question in two-hour televised debates, by removing polls from their websites that indicate Paul holding a lead…) when they fall head over heels to excuse people like Romney or Obama or Bush from any missteps they’ve made. Major news basically fails to confront serious issues. For instance, you won’t find much coverage on cable news right now about the NDAA– an act that, shamefully, recently made it through both Congress and the Senate with almost no dissenters except a few democrats and Paul–that is waiting on Obama’s desk to be vetoed. Obama previously said he would veto, and now says he will not. The NDAA bill legalizes the *indefinite* imprisonment of American citizens without trial or charge, essentially putting us back as a civilized group of people not only before the Constitution, but before the damn Magna Carta. It’s serious business. But the media doesn’t touch it, because they aren’t concerned with many things that are actually serious and that will truly make viewers uncomfortable, rather than things that, though incendiary, are the types of incendiary things that get people to watch, that make people feel an outrage that is a validating outrage–like when they try to make viewers decide Paul isn’t worthy of a second look or research because he’s just ‘so racist’. Anyway.

I bring this up because we’re getting to the point, in criticizing Paul because he has some supporters who are racist and because he definitely mismanaged the Paul newsletters, that we are all making the Perfect the enemy of the Good. Those who say they will not vote for Paul because they won’t vote for anyone, that’s understandable. But to hold up this instance as making Paul unacceptable while accepting the actions of Obama or the prospective agendas of the other GOP candidates strikes me as being intellectually disingenuous. I don’t happen to believe that Paul wrote those things. At worst, he signed off on them trying to gain some support from people whose opinions aren’t worthy of being sought. But many things that are disgusting to me, and to many other people, in the newsletters are in conflict with what he has done and written about his entire life. There’s even factual errors that indicate he didn’t write or edit them; there’s one that asserts that MLK was some philanderer and that he should not have a national holiday after him; but Paul personally voted to make MLK a national holiday and has named him many times as a personal hero. But here’s the thing; even if Paul was secretly super racist and white-power and all that shit, wouldn’t invalidate the fact he’s the best candidate for POTUS, because he’s never voted for or spoken out for anything that would suppress the rights of individuals or minorities. In fact, he’s been extremely outspoken about the need to end the drug war on the basis that it disproportionally negatively affects minority populations; and the only thing I’ve ever learned him to change position on–capital punishment–is because he believes that, whether some criminals deserve to die or not, who knows, but the US shouldn’t have it as part of our justice system because it’s disproportionally applied to minorities, especially blacks.

One final thing: in regards to Paul having ‘more’ racist supporters than your average candidate, I don’t know if that’s necessarily true. I’m sure if you dig even moderately deep into any candidate’s support populations you find bigots of all sorts. It’s a sad fact that many people are just not nice. It’s also not really fair (hello, NYT) to act like he’s an evil man or holds bad views because some people who like him happen to hold some other really, really bad views. It’s actually a logical fallacy as well. But if it was true that Paul did some how attract more racist people, it might also just be because Paul’s rhetoric, unlike pretty much any politician these days, Democrat or Republican, isn’t steeped in language of control. He basically says that whatever you believe or how you want to live your life, whether or not it could be considered morally up to par by your standards or mine, you can go knock yourself out as long as you don’t hurt others. For instance, it would be legal to hold racist views, but illegal to hurt or harm people who you held those views against. That’s the thing about freedom. Sometimes people think things and do things that you don’t like, or wouldn’t do or think yourself.

Peter Larson: “I enjoy how Paul drums up support from young lefties using an anti-war message that obscure[s] reprehensible ideas that would make most liberals puke…. he’s anti-war! So he must be good!”

Peter, I think you’re missing something important here. To wit: that substantive opposition to militarism and war is good, whether or not Ron Paul (or whoever else) is good.

This is not about Ron Paul and whether or not HE is good. Maybe he is a bad man. I cannot look into his heart and know that. And even if I could, it is beside the point in this political context. The point — which no one, including notably mark, seems to get — is the substance, i.e. what the man DOES. He could consort in private with KKK Grand Dragons, and have Nazis over for dinner, or whatever, but if his actually accomplished POLICIES (or policies that he materially supports) oppose racially-inequitable outcomes, then that counts for a lot — a whole lot more, in my view, than the consorting and dinner party guest lists. If he consorted with KKK and Nazis, that would of course disturb me, but it would not disturb me so much as to take my eyes off the real bottom line. And the real bottom line is that Paul is much more anti-racist IN EFFECT than any other politician, bar none. (Or at least in attempted effect. Paul is not to blame if the rest of congress does not support the same things he does.)

What he believes (about other races) in his heart makes a difference, and the fact that racists like him makes a difference, and his old racist newsletters make a difference, yes. But all those things combined do not make nearly as much difference, in a political context, as the objective results or effects of the policies he champions. I would be perfectly happy with a POTUS who has right-wing cranks as guests in the Lincoln bedroom IF that POTUS brought to a decisive end the incredibly racist War on Drugs, and/or if that POTUS fostered other policies to the same anti-racist effect. OK, maybe I would not be *perfectly* happy, but happy enough. I’ll take it, for God’s sake. Vastly, vastly better than Business As Usual with Obusha. Obusha is, in effect, a racist POTUS.

For some strange reason, otherwise-intelligent “progressives” seem utterly blind to this crucial point. They won’t touch the point with a 10-foot pole — witness this very thread (above; I raised the point; no replies). They seem to be happy voting for slick liars, regardless of what they actually do, as though the pleasant lies counted for more than the accomplished works.

The relevant philosophical idea is called *consequentialism* (or related utilitarianism): the idea that the consequences of an act are more important than the character or intents of the actor. I have a few misgivings about this point of view. I think that character, and associations, and other such things, ARE important. But it would be a huge error to assign them more importance than the consequences — the actual, real-world results or effects. To assign them more importance than consequences effectively empowers psychopaths and fakers, since it is easy to fake character and intents. Mainstream politicians (and numerous other psychopathic “leaders”) do it all the time, to great effect. Indeed, the country is now largely run by psychopaths.

Jackie: “even if Paul was secretly super racist and white-power and all that shit, wouldn’t invalidate the fact he’s the best candidate for POTUS, because he’s never voted for or spoken out for anything that would suppress the rights of individuals or minorities. In fact, he’s been extremely outspoken about the need to end the drug war on the basis that it disproportionally negatively affects minority populations; and the only thing I’ve ever learned him to change position on–capital punishment–is because he believes that, whether some criminals deserve to die or not, who knows, but the US shouldn’t have it as part of our justice system because it’s disproportionally applied to minorities, especially blacks. ”

is it really that hard to “get”? I think the part where it’s ok to hang out with KKK members is just not realistic though. Sorry.

personally it made me really nervous listening to Paul disavow those newsletters. he wasn’t outraged about what was written in the things; he was outraged that he was being asked about them. again! as if he’s not smart enough to realize that racist screeds with your name on them can bite you in the ass over and over.

there are things to like about Paul, but too much that doesn’t hold together. i know it’s tempting to think everyone else just doesn’t get it. what’s that called in philosophy?

Doesn’t he also think that we should go back to the gold standard, where that value of our currency is dependent on the price and availability of gold? That seems incredibly risky to me, as it would make our economy vulnerable to attack by nations and individuals with the wherewithall to buy up gold and affect the price/availability. It sounds good in theory, but I don’t see how it would work in practice.

As for the question of race, ask Paul if he thinks that our government should dictate whether or not store owners should be compelled to serve black patrons. Like his son, I suspect that he would say, no.

I should have written: “Indeed, the country is now largely run by SLICK, BEGUILING, ATTRACTIVE, LIKEABLE psychopaths and liars with squeeky-clean records, never having publically uttered a single objectionable remark.”

You might note — if it matters to you — that the financial crisis has positively DECIMATED the household wealth of black americans, while creating terrible unemployment and other problems for them as well. It has created problems for whites, too, but blacks have really taken it on the chin, disproportionally. And, it is going to get much worse, since the response to the crisis (massive bailouts for Wall $treet) is going to intensify the economic burdens — over time, rather than immediately. All of the Democratic and Republican politicians and operatives (including Bwarny Fwank, and Obusha) who contributed to the crisis, and who supported the disastrous response to it, will be responsible for much worse racial inequality in economic status. IMO, that’s real racism, Dragon — racism in actual effect, not mere words. Relative to this vast suffering, Ron Paul’s crimes are trifling. But that’s just the opinion of someone who considers actual, real-life suffering of 10s of millions of blacks to be more important than some ugly comments in a 20-year-old newsletter. You can safely disregard such a view.

OK. Let’s say you know for a fact that he is a bad man. No doubt about it. Let’s also say that (by some minor miracle) he gets elected POTUS, and (by some further miracle) actually serves out his term without getting killed, and (by some still further miracle) is successful in drastically reducing the “defense” (war) budget, partially reversing the miltarization of our society, re-instating the Bill of Rights from the numerous assualts of recent and past years, and ending or drastically modifying the War on (some) Drugs. NOW, considering all that, what is the importance off your certain knowledge that he is a bad man? What is the significance off his indisputable badness? In what way has his badness hurt anyone? How are his positive accomplishments (and I think you will agree that they are positive) vitiated by his badness?

kjc: “I think the part where it’s ok to hang out with KKK members is just not realistic though. Sorry.”

Did you read what I wrote? I didn’t say it was OK. I said that it would disturb me. I also said that other things are more important than that. Like fr’instance whether or not millions of blacks rot in jail unjustly. Would you really trade the one for the other? Let the millions of blacks rot, provided your leader was rhetorically squeeky-clean and never said an unkind word or had a non-PC association, from birth? That seems like a very bad trade, to me. I know it might sound strange, but I really do care about the millions of blacks (and whites, for that matter) rotting unjustly in jails. It distresses me. It does not seem to distress Obusha or most of the rest of the DP; they don’t mind it a bit. But it does distress me.

kjc: “a little bit of philosophy can do a lot of damage…. i know it’s tempting to think everyone else just doesn’t get it. what’s that called in philosophy?”

Do you have a problem with a slight bit of philosophical context? And I do mean SLIGHT. What was it? Three sentences?

As for others not getting it: that is not a philosophical issue, of course; it is a cognitive one. You’ll note that I referred to “getting it” (i.e. comprehending the point), NOT TO AGREEING WITH ME. You can do the one without the other. You can get it — get the point I am making — and still disagree. When I said that Jackie got it, I was not referring to her assertion that RP is the best candidate for POTUS (which may or may not be true). That remark was incidental and introductory to what I WAS referring to, which was RP’s actual positions of (racial) significance — described well by Jackie. It is still unclear, from the responses, whether anyone gets what I am saying. Peter’s response, for example, is questionable: he might have gotten the point (cannot tell for sure), but probably did not.

For the record, I don’t think Ron Paul is even nearly the best person for POTUS. Many of his views and convictions are atavistic and seriously out of touch with the needs of a modern/post-modern situation. On the other hand, he is very clearly the best Republican candidate (by an extremely large margin!), and he is also clearly superior to Obusha. With Obusha, we get NOTHING but Bush Lite (if even that good); at least RP has the correct view on a few very very important issues.

Consider also — just for fun (?) — the triangulation possibilities. If RP actually got the Republican nomination, it would free up all the lefties to vote for a real progressive third-party candidate — like Jill Stein (green), or some other. Why? Because, in that case, our 3rd-party votes would only draw votes away from Obusha, thereby giving the (superior) RP a better chance. (That would be instead of giving some terrifyingly-awful Republican a better chance. Think: Palin, Bachman.) Of course the 3rd-party person will not win, but RP might, and that would be a huge step forward over the mainstream Republican and Democratic bums. With the mainstream folks, we are 100% GUARANTEED of getting nothing worthwhile. Meanwhile, we build a 3rd-party/non-duopoly organization that might actually have an impact in future election cycles. Just a thought.

Peter: My apologies, regarding “good and bad”. I responded to what I thought you wrote, not to what you actually wrote. Sorry. I’m an idiot sometimes. However, consider that what I said did address one track of this conversation. The racist newsletter thing is really about RP the bad (racist) man. We know he is bad because of those awful newsletters. And my point is: how bad (racist) can someone be when the policies he advocates would have strikingly beneficial effects with respect to racial justice?

As for Ron Paul not being effective: hey, what do you expect? Do you think he is going to miraculously and single-handedly transform the consciousnesses of each of the other 534? All of this talk (mostly mine) about Ron Paul and dismantling the military-industrial complex, the drug war, etc., etc., is really about his CORRECT POSITION on these issues, not on the actual likelihood of bringing about the desired changes. It will be a long uphill battle, and it would be most unrealistic to expect an RP presidency to bring it all to pass. But at least he IS correct on them, damn it! And on that score, far superior to Obusha or the other (truly miserable and horrid) Republican candidates. It would be unbelievably great to have a POTUS who actually spoke critical truth about these things, as RP would do. With the mainstreamers of both parties we have zero chance of same.

“Jamie Kirchick wonders why libertarians “don’t care” about the newsletters. I don’t think it’s right to say they don’t care. Their view is that the offending sentences, of which there are far fewer than critics are intimating, sound absolutely nothing like Ron Paul (can anyone seriously dispute that?), and they are convinced, with good reason, that the kindly man they see in the debates, in interviews and in person is who he really is.

They also believe that our political class is full of people — we may justly call them sociopaths — whose words may always be exquisitely correct, never once straying from proper p.c. decorum, but who think absolutely nothing of (say) bombing foreign populations on the most ludicrous and transparent grounds. Our society banishes those who make insensitive remarks, but considers our knee-jerk bombardiers to be people with a legitimate point of view, and certainly as having done nothing that might end a person’s career.

snip

Our country’s political class is full of people who believed it morally acceptable, after 1991, to deprive the Iraqi population of baby food, blood-analysis equipment for children’s hospitals, heaters, syringes, ambulance equipment, insecticide, children’s clothes, school notebooks, bicycles, etc. (I’ll leave aside the so-called conservatives who for some reason think it must be “liberal” to find something wrong with this.)

Now the people responsible for so inhumane and indefensible a policy will utter every p.c. platitude in the world. Every word will be exquisitely proper. Our society thus considers them to be citizens in good standing.

This is what Ron Paul supporters, who are standing by him, are responding to. Insensitive remarks, which not even his worst critic thinks he actually wrote, can scarcely be morally worse than policies like these, which enjoy the active support of practically the entire spectrum of the U.S. political class.”

“Time magazine’s Joe Klein, who’s been following Ron Paul in Iowa, just noted what an astonishing thing he has been witnessing: the frontrunner in Iowa isn’t focusing in his speeches on the issues that handlers would tell him to focus on. He’s not sticking to the red-meat issues that would please the GOP base. He’s talking about foreign policy, civil liberties, and other things on which the modern GOP considers him anathema.

This has essentially never been seen before, and will likely never be seen again — an honest man standing up to a morally corrupt establishment, saying things no one in either wing of that establishment would dream of saying. Yes, all the establishment’s men will assure us of their profound commitment to the brotherhood of man, and every p.c. platitude ever uttered will pour forth from their lips. Ron Paul supporters are trying to persuade their countrymen that we ought to insist on a teensy bit more than this.”

Kinda relentless with the BS, aren’t you, Alan? Looks like your strategy is to wear people down by spewing a load of relativist gibberish. There are so many things wrong with Ron Paul but I’ll just stick to the newsletters, for now. Whatever excuses he or his supporters wish to make for them, the bottom line is Ron Paul published and profited immensely from them. Period. There isn’t one excuse that he or you can come up with that will wash away the odiousness of those newsletters. Words have consequences. Whether or not he wrote the awful stuff in them, the fact is that his subscribers, whom he aggressively sought out by mentioning the newsletters every freaking chance he got, his readers took heart from those words. Those words nourished and fed their worst racist, homophobic and paranoid thoughts. Ron Paul, whether he wrote them or not, OWNS those words forever. When you make excuses for them, you own them also. And then there’s crap like this. http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/153607/major_ron_paul_supporter_favors_death_penalty_for_gays/?page=entire

Maybe you’d think people who don’t support RP would think that way (didn’t even occur to me and I had to puzzle for a minute over what the *spoiler* meant) which says far more about the way you view people opposed to him, than anything else. Good vs evil, according to your former comments. Good for Dr. Ron Paul for doing his job. I wouldn’t expect anything otherwise. Are people supposed to be impressed that he did his job, the job that he swore an oath to perform when called upon? Is it supposed to make him heroic because he did it regardless of the interracial make-up of the couple? Because it doesn’t, not at all. Are people supposed to be impressed that the couple never received a bill? It’s not as impressive as you would have us believe, as that is left just vague enough to insinuate that RP picked up the check. Well, did he or didn’t he? Just say it if you did, Mr. Paul, so you can be congratulated for that caring gesture. Did he ream out the uncaring nursing staff and whomever else try to deny this woman medical care? Then that should be a major part of the story, because surely he should claim credit for making sure that such a situation should never, ever occur at that hospital again and that steps were take to somehow punish those who tried to deny care. That is what would make this a truly heroic story. But I suspect Dr. Paul would think it a violation of that nurse’s individual rights were she be forced to give care to all who would need it, regardless of race, etc. Some fucking hero. He did his job. Big whoop.

Anonymous Mike: “Doesn’t he also think that we should go back to the gold standard, where that value of our currency is dependent on the price and availability of gold?”

I think he does, yes. Whether that is a good idea or not, I’m not qualified to say. What I am qualified to say is that our currency has to be linked or indexed to SOMETHING, sometime, sooner or later. Has to be, and WILL be, in practice. The practice can be either *de jure*, or *de facto*; the latter might not be pretty. A simple gold standard might not be best. Better, perhaps: several precious metals (including, these days, rare earths and the like). Or even better, perhaps: a broad basket off commodities. But the bottom line is that the currency has to be supported by (indexed to) something, sometime — based on something other than our military might and ability to intimidate. These experiments with floating currencies, not indexed to anything, always seem to end very badly. Our current experiment with same goes back to 1971, when Nixon “closed the gold window” (i.e. removed the link of the dollar to gold). The (unbacked) Euro is now on the verge of collapse, i.e. will collapse when/if (WHEN) the eurozone collapses,which should be fairly soon. The dollar will follow, though it might take some years yet. Ron Paul’s gold idea, or something similar to it. will probably be necessary to get things back on a workable footing, after the collapse. Money has to be backed by something, in order to sustainably fulfill its store of value function. Pardon the disorganized rambling nature of this reply.

kjc: I like “Obusha”. It makes clear who the prick-in-chief really is (spiritually), and does so in an amusing way. As for “exhausting”: why? Touching on too many conceptual notes in a short space? What?

Jules: what is “relativist gibberish”? Also, you’re welcome to hate Ron Paul because of those dreadful newsletters. Go for it! You won’t be alone. Zillions of “progressives” will be right there with you — mostly over-40s, I expect. The over-40 crowd suffers from brain rigidification such that new and oddly orthogonal ideas (i.e. ideas that are not easily classifiable in the old, familiar way) cannot be comprehended, and are thus treated with fear and hatred — rather like some people treat different, alien racial groups. The younger crowd, generally, does not suffer from this, or at least not nearly as much.

“In medical practice, Ron Paul on principle didn’t accept Medicare or Medicade. He treated poor minorities for free during his entire time being a doctor. For decades he has made the claim that Martin Luther King, Jr and Rosa Parks are heroes of his for their practice of the libertarian principle of civil disobedience. He has long praised those who put themselves in danger of arrest or even death in order to end immoral laws or government practices. He has always done this.”

from the same link:

“Basically, we have a president who thinks nothing of murdering thousands and thousands of brown people in third world countries, assassinating American citizens without a trial and locking up millions of our fellow Americans and throwing them into cages for using drugs. And that is perfectly acceptible for the media. We have other Republican candidates who are allowed to be openly bigoted against Muslims and Latinos every single day and there is no controversy. Yet, when the one candidate who finds fault with these inhumane policies starts to gain ground with the electorate, a two decades old newsletter with very low circulation contains a few offensive phrases that no one believes Ron Paul actually wrote, THAT disqualifies him from office. All the far greater offenses purpetrated by our government on a routine basis are perfectly acceptable of course. That is quite the height of hypocrisy.”

“one of the greatest joys that I have as a Paul supporter is to see warmongers and neocons like Sean Hannity, Bill Oreilly and Rush Limbaugh squirm and throw hissy fits as the Ron Paul Revolution takes over local precincts and starts to gain control of the grassroots political system in this country. And, seriously, don’t you think that anyone who makes these despicable talking heads this unfomfortable and panicked must be doing something right? Their desperation and panic has not reached its pinacle yet. Wait until Ron Paul wins Iowa in a landslide and he is the legit frontrunner…. any thinking person should generally disregard these attempts at character assassination because we know why party insiders want to keep him from power”

“I support Paul because he is the only politician to have correctly predicted with stunning accuracy the economic crisis that we are suffering under…. He understands that we will witness the collapse of our currency if we don’t reform our economic thinking and curtail the power of the central bank. He has the track record of accurate predictions to prove his worth on fixing our economy. With Paul, our recession might last another two years before a robust recovery. With current policies, expect fifteen to twenty years of hell…. Secondly, I want to end our imperialism and have a humble foreign policy. We should be the peacemakers not the warmongers in the world. We should lead the world through example not through force and intimidation. Finally, he is the only one in our government who takes his oath to the Constitution seriously. When he votes for a bill or introduces legislation, he always asks ‘I am granted the authority to do this?’ If not, he votes no. What is wrong with this?”

I really could care less if Paul saw patients for free. He is welcome to do so, but I don’t see how it is in the least relevant.

I also find his suggestion that all doctors provide health care for free as some sort of solution to the vast problems of health care (in) access in this country to be asinine but there’s not much about Paul that isn’t asinine.

After reading one more of his books yesterday, I am starting to think that Paul Krugman’s quip about Newt Gingrich being a “stupid man’s idea of what a smart man sounds like” to actually be more applicable to Paul.

Peter: “I really could care less if Paul saw patients for free. He is welcome to do so, but I don’t see how it is in the least relevant.”

If that (point of personal character) is not relevant, and the anti-war/anti-militarism/anti-racist/etc. policies that he advocates are not relevant, then what IS relevant?

Peter: “I also find his suggestion that all doctors provide health care for free some sort of solution to the vast problems of health care (in) access in this country to be asinine”

Is that what he suggests? I didn’t know that. Having doctors provide some free care to those in need is certainly a very good idea, whether or not it addresses the totality of health care (i.e. disease care) problems in the U.S. Why shouldn’t doctors do some community service? Same with lawyers, etc. It is a great idea. Strange here that a nominal “progressive” has less communitarian orientation than the nominal “libertarian” individualist.

“The over-40 crowd suffers from brain rigidification such that new and oddly orthogonal ideas (i.e. ideas that are not easily classifiable in the old, familiar way) cannot be comprehended, and are thus treated with fear and hatred”

“In the days before Medicare and Medicaid, the poor and elderly were admitted to hospitals at the same rate they are now, and received good care. Before those programs came into existence, every physician understood that he or she had a responsibility towards the less fortunate and free medical care was the norm. Hardly anyone is aware of this today, since it doesn’t fit into the typical, by the script story of government rescuing us from a predatory private sector.”

“Illegal aliens already receive de-facto free health care. Why can’t poor Americans have the same… not as a right, but as a charitable benefit provided by doctors who feel a personal responsibility for their fellow citizens?”

Impressive quotations from Paul (I assume them to be from Paul), Peter. Why is it “unrealistic and unsustainable” for the economically highly-privileged to give something back to the community? It may not be the entirety of the solution for our disease-care problems — indeed I’m sure it is not — but for you to denounce it as “absurd” is… absurd. And shameful. You should be ashamed.

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/singleton/ “Whatever else one wants to say, it is indisputably true that Ron Paul is the only political figure with any sort of a national platform — certainly the only major presidential candidate in either party — who advocates policy views on issues that liberals and progressives have long flamboyantly claimed are both compelling and crucial. The converse is equally true: the candidate supported by liberals and progressives and for whom most will vote — Barack Obama — advocates views on these issues (indeed, has taken action on these issues) that liberals and progressives have long claimed to find repellent, even evil.”

Greenwald says a bunch else, and he is not a Ron Paul fan. (Neither am I, for that matter.)

kjc: what Greenwald describes are “new and oddly orthogonal ideas (i.e. ideas that are not easily classifiable in the old, familiar way)” that, seemingly, “cannot be comprehended” by over-40 progressives especially, and thus tend to be “treated with fear and hatred”. Whether this is due to some physiologic problem like “brain rigidification” (as I suggested), I don’t know, but it certainly is a noticeable and remarkable phenomenon. What would be your explanation for it?

“Progressives would feel much better about themselves, their Party and their candidate if they only had to oppose, say, Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann. That’s because the standard GOP candidate agrees with Obama on many of these issues and is even worse on these others, so progressives can feel good about themselves for supporting Obama: his right-wing opponent is a warmonger, a servant to Wall Street, a neocon, a devotee of harsh and racist criminal justice policies, etc. etc. Paul scrambles the comfortable ideological and partisan categories and forces progressives to confront and account for the policies they are working to protect. [kjc, are you reading this? This “scrambling” is what I was referring to when I spoke of “orthogonal”, etc. There is nothing novel or insightful about what I am saying. It is obvious to any intelligent person who is not too ideologically blinkered. —alan2102] His nomination would mean that it is the Republican candidate — not the Democrat — who would be the anti-war, pro-due-process, pro-transparency, anti-Fed, anti-Wall-Street-bailout, anti-Drug-War advocate (which is why some neocons are expressly arguing they’d vote for Obama over Paul). Is it really hard to see why Democrats hate his candidacy and anyone who touts its benefits?”

Republican neocons voting for Obama over Paul? Hahaha! Yeah, I can see it. Hence: Obusha. Obama has been serving Bush’s third term.

And:

“Paul — alone among the national figures in both parties — is able and willing to advocate views that Americans urgently need to hear. That he is doing so within the Republican Party makes it all the more significant.”

And, quoting another blogger, Conor Friedersdorf:

“What I want Paul detractors to confront is that he alone, among viable candidates, favors reforming certain atrocious policies, including policies that explicitly target ethnic and religious minorities. And that, appalling as it is, every candidate in 2012 who has polled above 10 percent is complicit in some heinous policy or action or association. Paul’s association with racist newsletters is a serious moral failing, [but] even so, it doesn’t save us from making a fraught moral judgment about whether or not to support his candidacy, even if we’re judging by the single metric of protecting racial or ethnic minority groups, because when it comes to America’s most racist or racially fraught policies, Paul is arguably on the right side of all of them. His opponents are often on the wrong side, at least if you’re someone who thinks that it’s wrong to lock people up without due process or kill them in drone strikes or destabilize their countries by forcing a war on drug cartels even as American consumers ensure the strength of those cartels.”

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/12/30/ron-paul-and-the-killing-machine/ Weekend Edition December 30-32, 2011 Of War and Social Security Ron Paul and the Killing Machine by MIKE WHITNEY “Ron Paul is the only antiwar candidate who has a (microscopic) chance of winning in 2012. He’s also the only candidate who will make an effort to restore the Bill of Rights and reverse Congress’s decision to allow the president to “indefinitely” imprison American citizens without due process. For these reasons alone, Paul should garner the support of leftists, liberals, and progressives. But he won’t, because liberals are convinced that Paul will try to dismantle the social programs upon which the elderly, the infirm, and the vulnerable depend….” snip ‘Yes, it’s wrong to deprive the sick and elderly of some pittance so they can eek by, but is it as wrong as blowing women and children to bits in their own country, in their own cities, in their own homes?”

Good question, Mike. Wouldn’t it be good for Americans to think it over?

Alan, just because I don’t support Ron Paul, it doesn’t follow that I “hate” him. That is possible, you know. Though, I do have quite a bit of contempt for Paultards, I must admit. So you can beat me up over that but not for hating Ron Paul.

A reader by the name of Dragon just left this in another thread and I thought that I should copy it here as well.

Dragon Posted January 2, 2012 at 6:19 pm

This isn’t from years ago obscure newsletter, it’s from yesterday on nation t.v.

Despite recent accusations of racism and homophobia, Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) stuck to his libertarian principles on Sunday, criticizing the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it “undermine[d] the concept of liberty” and “destroyed the principle of private property and private choices.”

“If you try to improve relationships by forcing and telling people what they can’t do, and you ignore and undermine the principles of liberty, then the government can come into our bedrooms,” Paul told Candy Crowley on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “And that’s exactly what has happened. Look at what’s happened with the PATRIOT Act. They can come into our houses, our bedrooms our businesses … And it was started back then.”

Yeah, he, like his son, believes that the government has no place telling business owners that they should have to serve blacks, gays, latinos, etc. That, according to Paul, is an affront to liberty… unlike bleeding to death outside a hospital that doesn’t serve black folks, which, I guess, is the epitome of liberty.

[To] the Gingriches, the Santorums, the Bachmanns, and the rest of that crazed crew falls the solemn responsibility of determining the Enemy of the moment. Debate is limited, on this subject, to the question of which Enemy ought to be targeted at this particular point in time. Paul has broken this rule, and allowed that the main enemy – for those who want to limit the power of government, cut $1 trillion dollars from the budget, and emerge out of our economic morass – is in Washington, D.C., not Tehran.

snip

Paul is just a stand-in for the great Outer Wilderness that exists – so some say – outside the Washington-New York axis of power. That the great unwashed masses beyond this perimeter don’t share the obsessions tormenting the Upper West Side of Manhattan and the Georgetown cocktail party circuit has been of little concern to Dorothy and her friends, the Cowardly Lions of the chickenhawk brigade and the Tin Woodsman a.k.a. Mitt Romney. Along with the scarecrows of the Fox News commentariat, together they’ve been marching down the yellow-brick road to war with Iran with nary an opponent to vilify. Suddenly they find themselves confronted by one who combines all their fears in a single convenient package: anti-interventionism (which they call “isolationism”), anti-elitism, and a well-organized and ideologically coherent movement targeting not only “big government” but the big financial interests, centered in New York, who profit from a system based on government debt.

snip

Note the sheer breadth of the Anti-Paul Popular Front, extending all the way from the Beltway “libertarians” of the Weigel-Sanchez-“cosmotarian” school to the Union Leader, the War Street Journal, and the identity-politics lefties who think Rachel Maddow is a real “radical.” At the core of the smear campaign, you’ll note, are our old friends the neocons: the self-proclaimed “homosexual warrior” Jamie Kirchick, who effortlessly wafted from The New Republic to Radio Free Europe and thence to the extremist edges of the neocon movement inhabited by the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. The latest “rediscovery” of the infamous newsletters was prompted by a rehash published in Bill Kristol’s Weekly Standard, who is still hoping that David Petraeus or some general on a white horse will come riding in to save the GOP from Paul.

This is a classic neocon smear operation, and it has only just begun.

snip

This campaign will fail: indeed, it is already failing. Nobody is buying it. That’s because the people are tired of our arrogant, self-satisfied elites, who think they can determine the outcome of an election before a single ballot is counted. The more they say “but of course he can’t win,” the more the average person wonders: isn’t that our decision to make?

I can’t help feeling gleeful. The old paradigm that Republicans are invariably – genetically – warmongers is coming apart at the seams, and the War Party is livid. Well, that’s tough, but all good rackets must come to an end, especially when the sheep discover to what extent they’ve been fleeced.

It’s the thrill of a lifetime to see the neocons in such a frothy-mouthed lather: they are calling Paul a hater, but they are the ones exuding hate from every pore. And the people can smell it as it stinks up the political atmosphere, poisoning the election and obscuring the issues they care about. That’s why the haters can’t touch Paul, and won’t touch him with their vicious tactics – although I wouldn’t be in the least bit surprised if their accusations of “racism” and worse inspire violence against Paul’s followers and possibly even against the candidate himself. Which is why I hope and pray Paul has some good security in place, because he represents the last chance we have to change American foreign policy before we’re all dragged down by the impending collapse of the American empire.

Exactly. They hate and fear him for just that reason. That’s one of the many amusing and gratifying things about this whole episode. Ron Paul represents conservatism (or a portion of it) *properly so called*, in contrast to the wild radicalism of the neocons — not even remotely conservative. Authentic conservative positions in some areas actually have a great deal of progressive content, even more (oh, the irony!) than the “progressive” (?) Democratic Party and its “progressive” (?) sycophants.

Though I don’t agree with Raimondo (post last) that “the haters will fail”. Rather, they will probably succeed. The haters on both sides will likely succeed, and thus doom us to yet another election cycle which gives us yet another right-wing neocon Republican or right-wing neocon Democrat, who will preside over the right-wing neocon-ization and destruction of America. That’s the likely outcome, but it is not set in stone. There are still positive possibilities.

Paul isn’t the only racist in the Republican field. The following comes from Think Progress.

GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum has been trying to pull off an upset in the Iowa caucus, but he’s drawing criticism ahead of tonight’s contest for racially charged remarks he recently made about welfare recipients:

It is unclear why Santorum pinpointed blacks specifically as recipients of federal aid. The original questioner asked “how do we get off this crazy train? We’ve got so much foreign influence in this country now,” adding “where do we go from here?”

On Tuesday, Anonymous enthusiasts hacked and defaced the website of American Third Position (A3P), a major US-based white supremacist network. According to Anonymous, documents liberated in the hack show that “Ron Paul has regularly met with many A3P members, even engaging in conference calls with their board of directors.”

The notorious international Internet hacktivist collective known as Anonymous is currently targeting American Nazis and white supremacists as part of their ongoing Operation Blitzkrieg (#OpBlitzkrieg). On Sunday, as part of Operation Blitzkrieg, hacktivists associated with Anonymous hacked and defaced the web page belonging to the American Nazi Party.